National Reciprocity part Deux

This is a discussion on National Reciprocity part Deux within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; this might even pass
No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: HR 822: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced (Updated)...

This version though is drafted well being straight forward in manner allowing states continued right to maintain their own conditions without introducing a federal assignment or condition of licensure.

Best of all there is really nothing in this for antis to get bent about as it doesn't enable any one to carry anywhere as outside their resident state who by BOTH resident state AND visiting state statute they could not otherwise do so, while as within current FEDERAL firearm laws.

However now you have allowed the federal government to regulate states business.... it is a fine line. Not to mention they take it over, regulate the heck out of it and if they can make the law, they can take it away too.. I dont like the federal government having their hands in ANYTHING outside of what they are supposed to be doing ( national security/foreign relations) and can't do that right either.

I think I know what they are trying to say, but wow, this is awkward wording---

"and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that—
‘‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or"

However now you have allowed the federal government to regulate states business.... it is a fine line. Not to mention they take it over, regulate the heck out of it and if they can make the law, they can take it away too.. I dont like the federal government having their hands in ANYTHING outside of what they are supposed to be doing ( national security/foreign relations) and can't do that right either.

Agreed. On the other hand, The Constitution of The United States applies to all Americans...

Hrmm, if something like this passed, I wonder what happens to the states that don't issue or issue restricted CCWs. Now you'd have out of staters being able to carry but not their own residents. Sounds like a whole new set of lawsuits.

I could live with this. The only individuals this would hurt would be Vermont residents, which do not have a permit system at all. Alaska and Arizon do still issue permits to those who want one. I imagine states that do a heavy business in non-resident permits won't be too happy with it though. It virtually puts an end to the need for non-resident permits.

I could live with this. The only individuals this would hurt would be Vermont residents, which do not have a permit system at all. Alaska and Arizon do still issue permits to those who want one. I imagine states that do a heavy business in non-resident permits won't be too happy with it though. It virtually puts an end to the need for non-resident permits.

VT residents will simply need to get a non-resident permit for travel. The non-resident issuing states will probably get hurt, but will still be in business because of the may/non-issue states(until the courts determine the 2A means carry in public). FL may get hurt because its more than UT or AZ's permit.

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848

VT residents will simply need to get a non-resident permit for travel. The non-resident issuing states will probably get hurt, but will still be in business because of the may/non-issue states(until the courts determine the 2A means carry in public). FL may get hurt because its more than UT or AZ's permit.

I'm not sure that would be allowed with the wording presently in there.

"in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that—
‘‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed "

No mention in this bill exists referencing the validity of non-resident permits. At least I didn't see it in there.

Its well intentioned and could be helpful, but I think VT would have to start issuing or there folks wouldn't be able to rely on this proposed law as currently drafted. (Assuming I'm reading it correctly.)

(Added a moment later, boy, right now such a law would really help me out with my summer travel plans.)

I'm not sure that would be allowed with the wording presently in there.

"in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that—
‘‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed "

No mention in this bill exists referencing the validity of non-resident permits. At least I didn't see it in there.

Its well intentioned and could be helpful, but I think VT would have to start issuing or there folks wouldn't be able to rely on this proposed law as currently drafted. (Assuming I'm reading it correctly.)

(Added a moment later, boy, right now such a law would really help me out with my summer travel plans.)

I think you may have missed the part I underinws below:

...who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that—
‘‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

I believe any permit that will allow you to carry in your home state will do.

However now you have allowed the federal government to regulate states business.... it is a fine line. Not to mention they take it over, regulate the heck out of it and if they can make the law, they can take it away too.. I dont like the federal government having their hands in ANYTHING outside of what they are supposed to be doing ( national security/foreign relations) and can't do that right either.

You've got it completely backwards my friend...

The 2nd amendment of the constitution of the united states of america clearly states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As it stands, states have taken it upon themselves to REVOKE this right from citizens. It is not different than if states had passed a law saying that you need a permit and a background check in order to be allowed to make "free speech."

So no, it's not "giving the federal government the power to make laws that apply in every state"....that was a power that the federal govt had since the day the country was founded. Rather it is recognizing that states have already violated federal law by passing contradictory laws that overstep their boundaries to take away our basic constitutional rights...and trying to set the matter right.